Do you wish there's a god?

[pocaracas]

How do social aspects fit into this simple definition?

I’m not sure what you mean by social aspects?

Society influences a variety of subjective elements, like fashion taste, movies, music etc… We can easily recognize that the reason we like certain things unique to our cultures as a result of our societies influence. Because our society finds certain things appealing, we also find them appealing.

This is not the same with morality. We don’t look at the Nazi the way we might look at a different societies taste in fashion. We don’t consider a person who likes torturing innocent babies just for fun regardless of the society or culture he was born into, as someone who just like’s a different band that you or I do. We recognize that there’s something truly wrong with such a person. Some sort of maladaption, delusion, etc..

We don’t perceive moral wrongness, the way we do societies subjective tastes in things, but as we do the wrongness of something false, something not true.

No, we perceive moral wrongness as something more lasting, more fundamental... but ultimately connected with the survival of the social group.
We generally perceive the killing of a fellow human as morally wrong, because it goes against the survival of the group. However, when it goes against the survival of another group, the wrongness fades somewhat. That's the loophole that the Nazis exploited, I'd say. Considering a subset of the population as a different group brings forth the "us vs them" behavior.

So... why do you say it's an objective truth?
How did you determine that it's objective, like the color yellow?

We perceive it as objective. I determine it’s objective because I perceive it as external to me, like the yellow of my wife’s dress, or chair in front of me.

External to you... but is it external to the whole of humanity? Is there such a thing as morality in the absence of humanity? Or rather, in the absence of any social species!
I'd wager that no. Morality applies to a social group.
For species that are not social... and I'm going for an obviously not social example... like an ameba, do you suppose that morality would somehow apply?

You recognize it as something shared by many individuals in different social groups, yes... but how does the leap in logic sees this "immorality of the holocaust" as something external to any and all individuals in all the human social groups?

No, I recognize it as something recognized perceived by others as well. That they see the same thing I do, not that they shared some subjective preference with me. We are all in shared agreement that 1+1 =2. But the truth of 1+1 =2 is not dependent on our shared agreement. If we find ourselves in a society engaging in the holocaust, who though the holocaust is a good thing, doesn’t make it a good thing, in fact such a society would be one thats gone mad, is delusional, etc… unlike a society changing fashion tastes over time. This point seems to fail to register to you.

What does 1+1 mean in the absence of a conscience that keeps a tally on an amount?

Those others that perceive the same moral wrongness as you... could they not have been the recipients a moral code handed down through genetics? A moral code that you then perceive as exdernal, for you cannot consciously account for its origin?

That moral perceptions have been observed in toddlers and infants is no surprise to me. Heck, they've been observed in many other animal species!!
But on those toddlers, why would you assume that such moral traits to be casting doubt on the suggestion that they arise from the social group? Toddlers are humans, and it is to be expected that some traits are embedded in the genetic makeup. The oldest traits, those that we also observe in other animals should be found there.

I don’t think you’re taking your suggestions here to completion.The human inclination to morality, is to view it as objective not subjective. As matter of truth, not matter of personal tastes and preferences. There are atheists philsophers like Alex Rosenberg who are fully aware of this, but claim this is just an illusion. That we posses a variety of evolutionary components that lead us believe in objective morality, which doesn’t exist, and is just a mirage. That thing we experience here is real is not in fact real, the argument goes.

Such illusion only comes about due to the failure to consciously determine where that morality comes from.
To a particular individual, it feels as though it's always been there, given it's genetic nature. But it can be easily an evolved trait.
Much like the friendliness in dogs and, more recently, foxes.

But it’s silly, the only reason I should assume what I experience is real here, is not real, by presupposing atheism is true. It can’t be true, or it would undermine  one’s atheism. It’s one’s atheism dictating what's real, then our experience and perceptions themselves.

Sucks to be you!
It's philosophically important to discern where these drives originate, or you may end up with erroneous conclusions.
Not all that is intuitive is accurate.

Lies?... Do you think people who believe that the Earth is flat are lying?
Maybe they have a warped perception of reality, relative to the common human, but I don't think they'd be lying.
I think with nazis it was just an extension of the "us vs them" innate way of thinking that we have in our tribal brains.

No I don’t think they’re lying, they’re delusional, just like the Nazis were delusional, believing a variety of false things to sustain their beliefs.

But the truth value of the statement "the earth is flat" is very near the 0% I mentioned earlier...
The statement does not align with reality, it is thus false.
But those people are convinced that they have the truth value at 100%... Delusional, yes, that's a good word to describe it.
Curiously, I've seen it used to describe those who attribute a 100% truth value to "there is a god".

Again, us vs them.... they are worth less than us and so they can be exploited.

Which is a lie. The belief that black people were less human than whites, is a false belief. If they recognized the truth, that they are equals, they couldn’t have sustained the practice of slavery as they did. Evil is reliant on lies and deceptions to justify it, unlike Good, and unlike subjective preferences.

Why do you anthropomorphize Evil and Good?